Justification of Eternal Punishment

[Emmanuel Okpanachi]

Have any of you heard of Cliff Knechtle? He's an apologetic pastor who visits college campuses, discussing theological issues with students. I agree with much of what he says - such as his arguments for the existence of God, and his arguments against moral relativism. Though much of what he teaches is intellectually sound, there's also much falseness that he espouses, such as the 'acceptance' of Jesus Christ, and everlasting Hell.

I was watching one of his videos the other day. In the video a person asks him about Hell and he responds with an analogy. Through the analogy Cliffe attempts to explain why unending Hell, is a just, valid and deserving punishment. His reasoning is that offences committed against higher authority figures deserve more severe punishments. Thus an offence committed against God - the highest authority - demands the most severe punishment.

Here is the video that contains Cliffe's analogy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlgI6oh7oM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It starts from 16.05, ending at 19:13.

I wonder, in response to Cliffe's analogy, why crimes comitted against higher authorities (e.g. police officer, president) should be deserving of harsher penalties or punishments?

Is it because society says so? If so, what makes society right?

Isn't it unfair to say that the penalty for hitting the president should be greater than hitting a teacher? If I hit the president, why should the value of my penalty go up dramatically just because he has more authority? I believe that the penalty for hitting the president or hitting the chief of police or hitting a teacher, should be the same. All are humans and therefore have the same value. So the value of the punishment should be the same. It should unaffected by status, titles, authority, age, race, or any other such external factor. Our legal system(s) should be objective.

If a civilian who abuses an authority figure should receive a more severe punishment; should those in authority who commit an abusive crime also receive a more severe punishment? If the president hits a common civilian, should he be dealt with more severely, because of the authority he possesses?

Now, we know that the highest authority is God. When we 'slap God in the face' (as Cliffe puts it), offending Him by breaking His Law, His solution is of course to punish us. This is so that we might learn from punishment. But if a person is forever being punished - via eternal hell - how will they ever reach the end goal, for which that punishment was intended? Even human authority figures grasp the concept of remedial punishment. How much more does God?

In dealing with a rebellious child a parent might turn the child over, give a few slaps, and that's it. They don't perpetually slap their child. If wicked human beings (Matthew 7:11) don't even go to such torturous lengths, what makes Cliffe think that the good God (Luke 18:19) would perpetually punish His own creations? And not even just continuously punish them, but punish them in the most wicked of ways - roasting and burning in inextinguishable fire!

The doctrine of Hell is not even punishment, it's abuse. Far be it for the loving God, who is Love, to go against His own Law and abuse anyone. For Him to do so would essentially mean He'd be abusing Himself, because we are all, to some extent, extensions of Him.

[Paul Cohen]

I hadn’t heard of Cliff Knechtle before, Manny, not that it matters. You contend with two points in his presentation. One is his foolish argument that because God is the ultimate authority, therefore sinning against Him requires the ultimate punishment, which would be never-ending torment. You’ve explained why that’s an absurd and wicked notion.

I would add to what you’ve said that Cliff’s assumption that unrepentant sinners knowingly “flip” off God is not always the case, not by a long shot. Consider what God said of Nineveh and all its inhabitants, for example, whom He was ready to destroy because of their sins:

“And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left…?” (Jonah 4:11 ESV)

And what did Jesus say of the Jews who had Him crucified, the same people He gave Rome to destroy in 70 AD?

“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34 KJV).

The apostle Paul says of these people:

“For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations has comes in” (Romans 11:25 MKJV).

Who blinded them, and why?

“For God has shut up all in unbelief, so that He might show mercy to all” (Romans 11:32 MKJV).

This puts things in God’s perspective and shows how Cliff is altogether wrong in spirit and argument that sinners will be tortured forever. Jesus Christ came to save sinners, Paul says, of whom he was chief. If God saves the chief offender, who then won’t He save?

“However, because of this I was shown mercy, so that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, as a pattern for those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life” (1 Timothy 1:16 EMTV).

“For the Son of Man has not come to destroy men's lives, but to save” (Luke 9:56 MKJV).

Cliff’s other point, that offenses against authorities merit stronger punishment, is true by and large, contrary to your egalitarian sentiments, Manny. Consider the following examples:

Acts 23:1-5 LITV
(1) And looking on the Sanhedrin, Paul said, Men, brothers, I in all good conscience have conducted myself toward God to this day.
(2) But Ananias the high priest ordered those standing by him to strike his mouth.
(3) Then Paul said to him, God is going to strike you, whitened wall! And do you sit judging me according to the Law, and contrary to the Law command me to be stricken?
(4) And those standing by said, Do you revile the high priest of God?
(5) And Paul said, Brothers, I did not know that he is high priest; for it has been written, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people." Ex. 22:28

“You shall not revile God, and you shall not curse a ruler among your people” (Exodus 22:28 LITV).

See how God places emphasis on how rulers are treated, linking them to Himself, the Appointer of all authorities?

And what about David, pursued by an envious and murderous Saul – the man God first ordained as king of Israel? David wouldn't touch Saul, though he had several opportunities:

“Behold, your eyes have seen today how the LORD had delivered you today into my hand in the cave. And one said to kill you. But I had pity on you. And I said, I will not put forth my hand against my lord, for he is the LORD's anointed” (1 Samuel 24:10 MKJV).

“And David said to Abishai, Do not destroy him. For who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD's anointed and be guiltless?... May the LORD give to each his righteousness and his faithfulness. For the LORD delivered you into my hand today, but I would not stretch forth my hand against the LORD’s anointed” (1 Samuel 26:9, 23 MKJV)

David saw a big difference between laying a hand on an anointed ruler and an ordinary citizen (see the incident with Nabal – 1 Samuel 25). Listen to what David had done to the one who claimed to kill Saul, even though it came by Saul’s request:

2 Samuel 1:9-16 MKJV
(9) He said to me again, Please stand over me and kill me, for anguish has come upon me, because all my life is still in me.
(10) And I stood over him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown on his head, and the bracelet on his arm, and have brought them here to my lord.
(11) And David took hold on his garments, and tore them. And likewise all the men with him did so.
(12) And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening, for Saul, and for his son Jonathan, and for the people of Jehovah, and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.
(13) And David said to the young man who told him, From where are you? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.
(14) And David said, Why were you not afraid to stretch forth your hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?
(15) And David called one of the young men and said, Go near; fall on him. And he struck him so that he died.
(16) And David said to him, Your blood be upon your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, I have slain the LORD's anointed.

It wasn’t just Hebrew believers in God who gave greater honor to dignitaries. Listen to what happened when the queen of Persia refused the king’s commandment:

Esther 1:13-21 MKJV
(13) And the king said to the wise men who knew the times (for so was the king's manner toward all who knew law and judgment;
(14) and the next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media who saw the king's face, who sat first in the kingdom),
(15) What shall we do with Queen Vashti according to law, because she has not done the command of the King Ahasuerus by the eunuchs?
(16) And Memucan answered before the king and princes, Vashti the queen has not only done wrong to the king, but also to all the princes, and to all the people who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus.
(17) For the matter of the queen shall go out to all women, so that their husbands shall be despised in their eyes, and it shall be reported that King Ahasuerus commanded to bring Vashti the queen in before him, but she did not come.
(18) And this day the princesses of Persia and Media shall say the same to all the king's princes who have heard of the deed of the queen. And there will be contempt and strife.
(19) If it please the king, let there be a royal command from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, so that it may not be changed, that Vashti come no more before King Ahasuerus. And let the king give her royal state to another who is better than she is.
(20) And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire (for it is great), all the wives shall give their husbands honor, both the great and small.
(21) And the saying pleased the king and the princes. And the king did according to the word of Memucan.

Doesn’t this make it amply clear why disrespecting or abusing an authority is such a grave matter, with much at stake? Presently in the United States there is an ongoing swift collapse of respect for police authority (along with respect for any authority). If you are a person of color, you are free to scuffle with an officer and grab at his gun to shoot him. Woe, however, to the officer and police department if he shoots the one scuffling with him!

I say “woe” to society. We live in a lawless day, and people have yet to see the true import of their lawlessness. Woe to those who don’t know and don’t care.

Manny, every situation requires wisdom for judgment. It’s true that God is no respecter of persons. Justice shouldn’t be weighted towards or away from anyone regardless of position, but understanding is needed to do what is right in God’s sight. And though men lack understanding and even willfully pervert justice, God’s justice always prevails. Praise God, He prevails. For this we are not only most thankful - we’re sanguine about what is to come.

[Victor Hafichuk]

I don't recall paying a whole lot of attention to this thread now 3 years old. As I review, I'm appreciating much of what Emmanuel Okpanachi had to say, and though Paul had some valid argument for giving particular honor to the anointed of the Lord, I'm frankly angry with what he had to say and also HOW - condescending, patronizing hotshot.

I also think Paul didn't give Emmanuel or his subject a fair hearing or ample coverage. Instead, I see Paul having taken a bit of a tangent, just enough to defile, as is oft the enemy's strategy.

I'd like to hear from others on this, please, namely Martin Van Popta, Brandon LaBerteaux, Ronnie Tanner, and several others. What do you say?

I think Okpanachi's commentary could also be posted under Knechtle as a false teacher, with qualification. Perhaps some of Paul's comments could also be posted but with editing and discretion.

People, I'm seeing the subtle work of the enemy in Paul's entry, something that was gradually increasing in the several remaining years before he was cast out. It is something that was hidden to me, though I wasn't settled. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm angry about it and hoping people will have something substantial to say to identify the offense here. Don't be afraid.

Father, I ask that all these things will be dealt with, clarified, and corrected so that people will hear the clear sound of the Trumpet of Truth and not be led astray by any error.

We must come to terms with the fact that everything is now up for review, as it has been for a few years now, ever since what I call the "Great Fast" of 2014. We're in a new and glorious phase, God-ordained and blessed. Let's be faithful and obedient to the call.

Ronnie, Martin, Brandon, and others, whoever you may be, I ask that this will be dealt with. I'm hoping I'm not off the mark here, but if I am, come and reason with me on it. Let's all be here not for ourselves but for the Lord.

[Victor Hafichuk]

Emmanuel Okpanachi, are you following. What do you have to say?

People, if I'm not seeing something clearly (and I can't see I'm right on the issue at the moment, though God willing, I will be), and you do have wisdom from the Lord on this, speak up.

I don't recall I've done this sort of thing before, speaking and asking before coming to a firm conclusion on a matter. Father, in this, bring us through to a good end for all.

[Brandon LaBerteaux]

Here's what I see, be it wrong or right:

Manny came to ask about a potentially false teacher. He was working these things out for himself and coming for counsel. The Lord gave him some good things to see, that being diabolical doctrines and falsehood in Knechtle's teachings.

Manny then reasoned out loud, asking for clarity on a matter of justice: should the punishment be the same for the same crime committed against two different societal positions.

I don't see Manny saying he is right or saying that his reasoning is right. I think he brings up a good point when considering the flip side that authority figures should be held more responsible. I believe there is a Scripture in James that speaks to that.

If anything, I see Manny here cogitating in a public setting, musing these things, and asking for some counsel on what he's saying. Maybe not explicitly so, but I don't see any other reason for writing, unless he just liked hearing the sound of his own voice.

While Paul's response addresses some of Manny's questions, I do see that Paul took a complete tangent, and I don't see that he received Manny as one seeking counsel, but as one asserting his own beliefs (which is where I disagree with Paul's response).

I think Paul was unduly severe (although maybe that's not the right word, but certainly the right sentiment).

Paul rambled for a bit, brought up somewhat unrelated pontifications towards the end, and while I see where he is coming from regarding God causing people to be evil or ignorant, I don't see that it addresses what Manny was talking about.

Cliff’s other point, that offenses against authorities merit stronger punishment, is true by and large, contrary to your egalitarian sentiments, Manny.

Here's the ego and condescending attitude. I don't gather Manny was specifically supporting egalitarianism, but rather musing and pondering what justice is and what it looks like.

If anything, it reminds me of a scenario where a professor, who has already learned all the material and mastered it, treats a student as if he/she is an idiot because they don't have the same understanding.

Justice shouldn’t be weighted towards or away from anyone regardless of position, but understanding is needed to do what is right in God’s sight.

I would agree with this statement, and I think it would have sufficed instead of writing out most of the post.

I also don't see where Paul addressed Manny's questions or comments about eternal hell and punishment.

People, I'm seeing the subtle work of the enemy in Paul's entry, something that was gradually increasing in the several remaining years before he was cast out. It is something that was hidden to me, though I wasn't settled. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm angry about it and hoping people will have something substantial to say to identify the offense here. Don't be afraid.

Victor, I don't think you're wrong. I've been listening to the Bible Readings, particularly Ezekiel and Daniel, which were around the time Sara Schmidt left and the aftermath thereof.

In them, having hindsight now and enlightenment as to his state, you can hear Paul's rebellion and disagreement. Sure, he disguised his rebellion with obeisance and acquiescing and sychophancy, but particularly where you get into a disagreement over the meaning of a phrase in Daniel ("may this dream be upon your enemies"), Paul's contending and contending, until the Lord starts speaking through you Victor and deals with the whole matter as being one of wrong attitude with Paul.

This is one example of many, but as I've had conversations with Ronnie about Paul, it seems apparent that in a way, Paul was the perfect false teacher, having experienced the Truth first hand, but corrupting just enough of it to go years without getting caught.

And now looking back at posts he wrote to me in, and the way I came to The Path of Truth, I could see a stark difference and contrast between you two, and it was almost as if Paul was manipulating your ministry to force you to take the burden of being the "hard one" when really Paul was hard! Hard in heart and hard in spirit!

He gave you a double burden of dealing with people, because he didn't have the anointing from God anymore to deal with matters properly. Sure, he had true things to say, and experience that was beneficial for others. But based off all the reports I have heard (which are few in comparison to you and those in Canada and Montana), Paul was doing more harm than good.

[Isaiah Dillard]

Emmanuel Okpanachi, are you following. What do you have to say?

Looking at Manny's status on the forum below his name, it appears he is no longer registered, as there is no information. This is the trend I've seen with those that have left TPOT.

I don't recall paying a whole lot of attention to this thread now 3 years old. As I review, I'm appreciating much of what Emmanuel Okpanachi had to say, and though Paul had some valid argument for giving particular honor to the anointed of the Lord, I'm frankly angry with what he had to say and also HOW - condescending, patronizing hotshot.

I agree Victor. Reading Manny's post, he had good things to say and I see it that he was making a case for why what Knechtle is teaching is false, and then was "thinking out loud" in regards to punishment and those in a higher position of authority. It appear towards the end of his writing, it appeared he started to gain understanding, particularly the last two paragraphs.

When I first came to TPOT, reading Paul's responses in the message board would make me have some doubts, as there was great knowledge and truth, but it seemed like he was, as you put it Victor, condescending and a patronizing hotshot with people that weren't trying to be combative. In your responses, I could see God's grace and edification. I mentioned this in my introduction back on June 23rd: "Victor's writings specifically blessed me, as it was Bold and Truthful with much grace, while some others were lacking this."

As Brandon stated, "And now looking back at posts he wrote to me in, and the way I came to The Path of Truth, I could see a stark difference and contrast between you two, and it was almost as if Paul was manipulating your ministry to force you to take the burden of being the "hard one" when really Paul was hard! Hard in heart and hard in spirit!" Amen Brandon, as well as everything else you wrote.

People, I'm seeing the subtle work of the enemy in Paul's entry, something that was gradually increasing in the several remaining years before he was cast out. It is something that was hidden to me, though I wasn't settled. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm angry about it and hoping people will have something substantial to say to identify the offense here. Don't be afraid.

I agree Victor. There was a communicating of wisdom and understanding demonstrated by Victor and Martin, where you two are of one spirit, that seemed to just be a missing element with Paul. I often listen to bible readings at my job, and recently got finished with Daniel. There was a recording, where it seems like there was an unnecessary discussion on such a minor regarding Daniel telling King Nebuchadnezzar about the dream where God is going to judge Him, which there is a conversation in the forum about the subject. It seemed like a waste of time, but I know that everything serves a purpose, big and small, which this occasion did.

Paul had good things to say, as he had much knowledge, and as I've been learning that truth, no matter the vessel, will make an impact: but it is a good example to see the difference between the anointing of God and knowledge.

In summary, Victor I don't see you as off the mark, but hitting bullseye.

[Michael Preston]

Isaiah, I agree with what you said:

When I first came to TPOT, reading Paul's responses in the message board would make me have some doubts, as there was great knowledge and truth, but it seemed like he was, as you put it Victor, condescending and a patronizing hotshot with people that weren't trying to be combative. In your responses, I could see God's grace and edification. I mentioned this in my introduction back on June 23rd: "Victor's writings specifically blessed me, as it was Bold and Truthful with much grace, while some others were lacking this."

As Brandon stated, "And now looking back at posts he wrote to me in, and the way I came to The Path of Truth, I could see a stark difference and contrast between you two, and it was almost as if Paul was manipulating your ministry to force you to take the burden of being the "hard one" when really Paul was hard! Hard in heart and hard in spirit!" Amen Brandon, as well as everything else you wrote.

When I came to TPOT, I noticed a difference well before Paul's betrayal and departure and before his last response to me. I gravitated towards your responses, Victor, because while sometimes you'd appear harsh, you were always spot on with not even a hint of self-righteousness or 'hotshot' in the spirit of what you typed. When you press with questions or strong assertions, it is for the reader's good, not for your own. With Paul, there is mounting evidence of the enemy's work.

Victor, you asked for perspectives from some of us here at TPOT, so I'll share one. I only had one interaction with Paul Cohen that I can remember, and that was the letter I sent regarding my work troubles at Hoya Vision. I don't have the email on hand, but I do remember vividly Paul saying I had a "people problem", but offered no explanation of what to do about it, if I recall correctly. Nevertheless, I took Paul's tone as flippant and his response a brushoff, to be honest. Until last week, I was afraid to ask about my work issues (which did indeed include "people problems") until this weekend because of his comment. I was afraid I'd get a lack of guidance again.

Paul topic aside, I want to thank all who responded to me this past Sabbath and weekend - Victor and Isaiah, thank you - I really needed to hear what you both had said and I've started putting your suggestions into action, namely obeying and being respectful to my boss and coworkers who know better. After the code reviews today, I spent some time updating code I believe would be helpful to the company as well as reading. My coworker Arash was patient with me today after I had formatted something not to his or Steven's liking. Arash even thanked me for doing what he wanted in the first place! I am thankful the Lord has shown mercy on me despite my previous bad attitude. God Bless you Victor and Isaiah. I will continue on, looking to the Lord and not myself, I hope. He's been in control of it all and is.

[Brian McDonald]

Victor said....

“I don't recall paying a whole lot of attention to this thread now 3 years old. As I review, I'm appreciating much of what Emmanuel Okpanachi had to say, and though Paul had some valid argument for giving particular honor to the anointed of the Lord, I'm frankly angry with what he had to say and also HOW - condescending, patronizing hotshot.

I also think Paul didn't give Emmanuel or his subject a fair hearing or ample coverage. Instead, I see Paul having taken a bit of a tangent, just enough to defile, as is oft the enemy's strategy.”

Dear Victor.

I find myself in agreement, I think. Is there more to this. (forgive me if I am wrong) I can see where Paul has went off in a bit of a tangent and shown himself somewhat “aloof” (maybe not the right word) in his response to Emmanuel.

As to him being “Condescending, patronizing hotshot” I have red similar words to describe both Victor and Paul on the Web-sites of those who contend with TPOT on matters of faith and authority. For all I know, Paul may indeed be all these things and if so, he will pay that “higher price” but I did not pick up on it in his dealings with me or any other correspondence with those inside or outside TPOT. (those that I have red) In fact, if I am being honest, rather than seeing someone who was condescending and a patronizing hotshot, I seen a man speak about God with an Authority I had not heard before. I think that’s what drew my attention to TPOT.

In the end, could it be a case of “Occupational Hazard” where one may fall into an evil trap associated with certain positions in civil or Spiritual matters. (Not that that gives one an excuse or free hand). I think of the Scribes and Pharisees and the words Jesus used to describe them. Is Paul guilty in this regard? I have not red all that Paul has written here at TPOT nor have I examined his attitude so closely to know the whole picture. Those of you who have known Paul for much longer or have the Spirit to see these things would know better. Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt here for those of us who correspond with others.

1 Peter 5:1-9 KJV
(1)  The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
(2)  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
(3)  Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
(4)  And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
(5)  Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
(6)  Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
(7)  Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
(8)  Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
(9)  Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

Brian.

[Jeannie Van Popta]

I agree, Victor and Brandon, but I never saw Manny as desiring counsel. He dabbled with Truth like a child will push his broccoli around the plate with no intention of ever eating it. I do wholeheartedly agree that Paul had grown comfortable in his intellectualistic mire. It made him the perfect setup for Manny.

Brandon, you say, "If anything, I see Manny here cogitating in a public setting, musing these things, and asking for some counsel on what he's saying. Maybe not explicitly so, but I don't see any other reason for writing, unless he just liked hearing the sound of his own voice."

Brandon, your "unless" nailed it. Manny absolutely loved the sound of his own voice. He was just using the forum to make a show of his presumed intellect and virtue. It was perfectly fitting that Paul showed him up with his own presumed intellect and virtue. Manny was beaten by a Giant.

Paul knew from years of battle that Manny was wrong in where he was coming from. But Paul's sight had grown dull over the years, so rather than accurately dividing a matter, he grew accustomed to just scaring people off with his intellectual/religious blustering.

Manny's problem wasn't egalitarianism, it was rebellion. There were two items Manny was looking to establish. One, authorities had no special obedience owed to them, not even God. Two, God's bark is worse than his bite; his punishment really isn't so bad in the end.

Manny was always one to talk and philosophize, but he never had any real intention to serve anyone but himself. He was in wickedness, hiding his continued sin, and trying to posit a less scary version of God. He was a guilty man on the run.

Paul served as Goliath scaring off those who came "in the Name of the Lord" but without faith. Obviously, Paul was in his own rebellion, but it was all a perfect setup.

I'm thankful these matters can be sorted out so that the Truth can be established.

Martin

[Ronnie Tanner]

Much has been said here that sums things up and that I agree with so I'll relay what I said to Victor when I first glanced at Paul's reply. It struck me that Paul was being nasty with Manny, essentially condemning him, something that wasn't clear to me in the past. Otherwise, I agree with most everything Paul said in terms of it being true, in and of itself.

After considering a little more of what was said, an example is when Paul refers to Manny's thoughts of treating all alike as being "egalitarian sentiments." I initially took this to be a simple correction of Manny's carnal thinking. The things Paul points out are true, but isn't it also true that the Lord says when we do things "unto the least of these" (I take that to mean those without any established or recognized authority) we do it unto Him (the Ultimate Authority)?

"And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you have done it to Me" (Matthew 25:40 MKJV).

Ironically the very thing Paul was teaching here, which was a greater respect for the authorities, is exactly what he wasn't doing. He was energetically attending to the desires of the people for his own sake while forsaking his elder in the Lord, therefore forsaking the Lord Himself.

[Brandon LaBerteaux]

Manny's problem wasn't egalitarianism, it was rebellion. There were two items Manny was looking to establish. One, authorities had no special obedience owed to them, not even God. Two, God's bark is worse than his bite; his punishment really isn't so bad in the end.

I'm watching the video Manny was referencing from Knechtle's site, and it is apparent that you're right on with this interpretation of things, Martin.

Knechtle says greater authority deserves greater obedience, and Manny used Knechtle's overall falsehood (trinity, eternal hell, etc.) as a means to negate this truth spoken by Knechtle.

In writing on false teachers, I'm learning that just because someone teaches false things, it doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong. In fact, that's what makes them so tricky to address.

Like brother James wrote, even devils can say that God is real, and like we saw with Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, the devil knows how to take true Scripture and concepts and pervert them into lies.

I believe "The Nature of Deception" paper covers this thoroughly.

For those interested:
https://givemeananswer.org/?p=3321

[Victor Hafichuk]

I'm trying to "do catch-up" here in this thread. It's apparent Brian and Martin disagree with me and I understand.

I can't say I've been guiltless of dealing unwisely with people like Manny and everyone else, Paul included. Harshness and all. I agree with what Martin said about Manny and Paul, though I'm not so sure how clearly Paul saw where Manny was coming from. Yet, the Lord was over all.

Paul most certainly was able to discern where people were coming from when I couldn't, and he did speak Truth with authority for a time in ways I could not, as granted from above. As the Lord promised, Paul had been to me as Aaron was to Moses, able to speak on behalf of one of slow speech, and I was as God to him as Moses was to Aaron.

Paul didn't fall because of pride or because his power "went to his head," so to speak. Nor did he fall because the work was too hard or his enemies too great. He fell because he had once too often offended; coveting the pleasures of this life, forsaking the incorruptible for the corruptible; he disobeyed the persistent admonition to not look back, to "make himself a eunuch." Had he heartily obeyed, he would have been free of his problem. Finally, he lived the lie and hid it from me. He added sin to sin with betrayal.

While he obeyed, he was blessed; disobeying, he was cursed. Finally, God had enough.

Paul is history now. What happened was that the Lord took him out of Sodom, Paul fulfilled his calling according to the Lord's Word to me, but then the Lord did what He said many years ago He would do - He hooked Paul by the nose and took him back where he came from. I took that more as a possibility than a sure thing. I was only partly right; I did not see this coming.

Why did the Lord do this to him? Paul persistently disobeyed over the years in the thing he was commanded repeatedly to not do. He looked back, pining for female comfort, companionship, and provision; thus, in bondage.

Those who put their hand to the plow must not look back. "Remember Lot's wife." She was shown mercy and God delivered her practically by force from Sodom's environment, the angels taking them by the hands. She and her family were also strictly warned to not look back at the destruction of what she once treasured. Her husband and daughters obeyed that admonition but she didn't and paid a fearful price.

Once too many times, lastly with Sara Schmidt, after so many others, Paul offended and God was done. None of you know the mess he was in when we first met in Israel. I had very little understanding of it; I only believed what the Lord told me of Paul. Today, I see much more, both with hindsight and revelation.

For Paul to be "hooked by the nose and taken back where he was from" is a tragic thing, indeed; however, it is the Lord's wisdom and doing. Not only am I not disagreeing with what the Lord has done, I'm so very thankful. I've been relieved of enormous burdens these past years since The Great Fast of 2014. I praise God for it. I truly do not deserve His mercy and grace, but there it is.

Concerning Paul, I'm reminded of these words: "A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring" (Proverbs 25:26 KJV).

In recent years, I was witnessing that troubling, that corruption, yet found myself in no position to do anything about it, except to ask Paul many times if all was well, to which he replied there was no problem. The mixture of good and evil had to come to maturity before it was dealt with. Finally, it came out; Paul admitted to his waywardness, but with no discernible repentance.

As Martin says, "Paul was in his own rebellion, but it was all a perfect setup."